[ox-en] Re: Integral Calculus Modeling - You Can Too!

haha,

did you read my email?  sheesh Michel!

A

On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 2:39 PM, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>Most of your critique has to do with the legacy of pigeon holing
> people developmentally.  That is not really what this is about.  At
> all.
>
> well, that is good to hear, as it is indeed my central concern ... perhaps I
> will experience it one day ...
>
> Michel
>
> On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 2:08 AM, Alex Rollin <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> I don't generally disagree, but "transcending and including" does not
>> mean everyone is instantly enlightened; nor   Assymetric communication
>> still happens.  Meeting in the middle is still needed.
>>
>> For those who require a meta-framework because they seek some clarity,
>> this is far easier and more efficient than a lot of other options.
>>
>> It goes without saying that any descriptive framework comes with a
>> load of rationalizations and other detritus, but, this one is quite a
>> razor when used for a specific purpose.
>>
>> On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 5:04 AM, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>> > Hi Alex,
>> >
>> > I have seen Fuhs works, but to my mind it also indicates that this
>> > integral
>> > calculus is problematic, due to its very complexity
>>
>> The paper is only 25 pages long.  I'm struggling for opportunities to
>> sit with people to understand how to better describe the use of it.
>> Recommendations are welcome!  Please!  They are much more useful than
>> saying that it is hard to use.
>> >
>> > And it also misses something: when we move to a more complex system, we
>> > actually re-simplify it under new encompassing rules ... in other words,
>> > we
>> > escape from the complexity crisis of the previous system
>>
>> Again, the old systems do not disappear.  Sometimes they become less
>> nasty or dangerous,but everyone still touches each level of complexity
>> on their way up the ladder.
>> >
>> > It seems that the reasoning here would miss that important effect
>>
>> Not really.  It simply demonstrates what 'inclusiveness' really means.
>>  This is not a 'system for everyone.'  It touches everyone, in a
>> descriptive way, but not everyone has the power to use it as a
>> constructive or analytical system.
>>
>> When you have a bunch of self-proclaimed systems people in a room,
>> though, one must ask about the conditions under which that group would
>> succeed in building something.  Surely talking about the same thing
>> would be a useful thing.  That's what this is for.
>> >
>> > More important, and I'm not sure how to express this,but judging people
>> > on
>> > their level of complexity doesn't really work in the practice of
>> > cooperation
>>
>> It's tacit component of collaboration...self-declaration or judgement
>> in process of approriate work, for example.
>> > ... you have to take each person from their highest potential, and use
>> > group
>> > rules and norms to get there ... This is what Jorge Ferrer calls the
>> > equipotential approach .. .
>>
>> nobody said you couldn't do that.  This isn't about fixing people at a
>> certain place.  It is about operational complexity.  They are not
>> unrelated, but they are not the same thing.
>>
>> it doesn't matter who is better, since we are all
>> > better at something, and we design the social system so that it can be
>> > expressed and become useful to the whole ...
>>
>> it does mater who is better because that person teachers, often times.
>>  that's how things reach the whole.
>>
>> It helps to talk about the same thing.  People have a deep,
>> multi-faceted, multi-reasoned set of needs for knowing and being a
>> part of something TOGETHER.  This is a descriptive framework, much
>> like planning out a software system, or any other system, so that a
>> group of people can have a static accounting for perspectives present
>> in a system.
>>
>> Most of your critique has to do with the legacy of pigeon holing
>> people developmentally.  That is not really what this is about.  At
>> all.
>>
>> However, no doubt you have been in a room sharing a brilliant idea and
>> nobody gets it.  Like, say, the theory or relativity?  You know, and
>> people are saying "so what does that have to dow ith anything?"  This
>> is a way ofunderstanding how to take the theory of relativity and tell
>> a story that people CAN understand.  By whittling down te big concepts
>> into bite size pieces, and still not losing sight of the whole.
>>
>> This is often done by an elder.  Maybe you know this story.  There's
>> the elder who holds on to a concept for a decade or more.  He answers
>> questions.  He tells people "Oh, you are on the right track" or "Oh,
>> that is not it, and I see where you are coming from.  This, over here,
>> is a piece, very similar to what you mentioned...see the similarity?"
>>
>> Those are examples of how a HUGE and complex UBER system like commons
>> based peer production gets whittled down into all manner of incomplete
>> reductionist doomed attempts that are, say, nonetheless pieces of the
>> whole, however incomplete and imperfect.
>>
>> Integral Calculus is a tool that can be used to model how those
>> aspects fit together and how the pieces are related, expose
>> redundancies, and help a group to stay on track with big ambitions
>> when details matter.
>>
>> Does that sound pigeon holing, or like some attempt to force people
>> into a process, in any way?
>>
>> It's a tool, and yes it comes with integral baggage, but this tool is
>> more powerful than any other systemic descriptive framework available
>> for modeling.  And, it's SUPER content free...no values, no 'peace and
>> justice' or 'family dynamics' claptrap in it.
>>
>> Alex
>>
>>
>> >
>> > On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Alex Rollin <[email protected]>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Such a way with words you have Michel!
>> >>
>> >> I've been thinking about writing more about levels of complexity in
>> >> relations.
>> >>
>> >> Yesterday I was doing some reading and thinking about the Fisk
>> >> references you sent.
>> >>
>> >> Personally I have become a huge fan of integral calculus for the
>> >> representation of perspectives.
>> >> When I sat and thought about Fisk I came up with the following
>> >> notations.
>> >>
>> >> The commons or any 'thing' or 'place' is third person.
>> >>
>> >> The motive behind a perspective is referred to as content, and is
>> >> secondary to the perspective itself.
>> >>
>> >> With Fisk the difference is the 'focus' of the perspective...whether
>> >> it is on 'you', the 2nd person, 'me' the 1st person, or 'Us, It' the
>> >> 3rd person. The "/" in an equation represents the 'privileged' or
>> >> 'operating' perspective.
>> >>
>> >> Equality is complex, checking 3rd through 1st and 2nd.
>> >> 3p(3/p)*1p(1p)*2p(1p)
>> >>
>> >> Rank checks 1st through 2nd.
>> >> 1p(1p)*1p(2/p)
>> >>
>> >> Commons checks 3rd through..any.
>> >> 3p(3/p)*__*__
>> >>
>> >> Market checks 3rd through 2nd with 1st as Primary
>> >> My profit is most important when it comes to your perspective or our
>> >> perspective in all space and places
>> >> 1p(1/p)*2p(1p)*3p(3p)
>> >>
>> >> It comes down to which is privelaged.
>> >>
>> >> When you add in more complexity, the equation gets longer.
>> >>
>> >> Peer Production, for example, might be something like:
>> >>
>> >> The value of my contributions from my perspective as viewed through
>> >> the perspective of you my peer and a larger group of peers through the
>> >> space of the commons and the overall project.
>> >>
>> >> Written as an integral calculus 'perspectival object' this is:
>> >>
>> >> 1p(1/p)*2nd(1p)*3rd(1p)*3p(3p)
>> >>
>> >> As you can see, this is a more complex perspective, as the length of
>> >> the notation suggests.
>> >>
>> >> This is teachable as a semantic noticing practice.  As we (3p(1p))
>> >> discuss any of our (3p(1p)) or my (1p(1p)) thoughts we can notice the
>> >> 'way' that we are looking and see how many of these perspectives are
>> >> contained within our perspective.
>> >>
>> >> The discussion previously got into the tribal versions of these
>> >> perspectives.  These perspectives gain in more and more complexity as
>> >> we grow more and more developed.  If you asked a Western child of 8
>> >> years about how the market works you would get a very simple
>> >> perspective.  Ask Franz Nahrada, though, and you will see that it is
>> >> possible to include many, many actors each making contributions
>> >> through the perspective and the system.
>> >>
>> >> Clint Fuhs has documented many thousands of perspectives, but one
>> >> thing to note is that as children we are capable of 15 or so
>> >> perspectives, and that as we grow older most of us are capable of
>> >> exercising 1500 or more.
>> >>
>> >> While some forms of minimalistic expression are still useful, many of
>> >> us are wrestling with ways to create and sustain complex systems, many
>> >> of which require the parallel and simultaneous operation of many
>> >> complex perspectives, some at least twice as complex as this one
>> >> listed about for a simple producer in a commons based peer production
>> >> system.
>> >>
>> >> As a little exercise, let try one of the ones that we are all thinking
>> >> about.
>> >>
>> >> A producer produces of his own free will goods that are destined for
>> >> the commons that also have value through the marketplace to a
>> >> particular consumer and the producer is deriving benefit from the
>> >> rents derived from the value of goods produced for the commons in some
>> >> form of semi-direct proportional shared based on the value of his
>> >> contribution relative to the value of all other contributions.
>> >>
>> >> 1p(1/p)*1p(1p)*3p(3p)*2p(3p)*2p(1p)*3p(1p)*3p(3p)
>> >>
>> >> Weee!
>> >>
>> >> This is a 'content-free' notation system.  The objects themselves
>> >> won't tell you much except the order of magnitude complexity that is
>> >> at play.
>> >>
>> >> However, the real value of this system is not just accuracy in
>> >> description, but in sharing that accuracy with a group!  Looking
>> >> really hard at the SAME level of complexity with a peer group.  This
>> >> allows a GROUP to stabilize a perspective and to exercise that
>> >> perspective and to come up with a Gestalt or deeper knowing of the
>> >> terrain when viewed from that perspective.
>> >>
>> >> This whole integral calculus thing is the invention of Ken Wilber, and
>> >> was originally developed  over the course of the last 6 or 7 years in
>> >> several of his published books.  Clint Fuhs wrote a paper that details
>> >> the basics of the notation system for anyone interested.
>> >>
>> >> After working in complex process design and organizational behavior
>> >> for a decade I have come to rely on this notation system as a last,
>> >> first, and best resort for a very specific type of practice: figuring
>> >> out exactly how complicated the operating perspective is, or can be.
>> >> Once this is established, variation in scope of perspective, which is
>> >> the single greatest threat to stability of perspective, can be
>> >> monitored.  Because outside influences are always coming inside it can
>> >> never be controlled, though.  For this reason, perspectives also need
>> >> to have a sort of 'graceful degradation' like code.  This is why, when
>> >> some people look at p2p, they call it a regression to tribal values or
>> >> an oversimplified gift economy.  After looking a bit more they can
>> >> acknowledge the power and complexity that adding in 'free will'
>> >> allows.  It goes on from there.
>> >>
>> >> In case you were wondering, in my opinion this is the most important
>> >> work we might use integral calculus for.   As Michel mentioned, most
>> >> ages or socities will have a dominant 'mode,' and this is often a
>> >> dominant or privelaged perspective.  In the US, for example, this is
>> >> the "I, Me, Mine" perspective.  Talking about and 2nd or 3rd person
>> >> persective REQUIRES processing THROUGH the 1st person perspective,
>> >> including thoughts, actions, behaviors, and of course, private
>> >> property.  Most systems require this, and, of course, respect for free
>> >> will would have all sophisticated perspectives processed, at least,
>> >> through the 1p(1/p) which is internal thoughts and feelings of the
>> >> individuals.
>> >>
>> >> That being said, the work at hand is to look at p2p systemic solutions
>> >> and, through action learning, create and socialize perspectival
>> >> objects that allow for all interacting levels of development to do
>> >> accurate and meaningful sense-making when encountering p2p class
>> >> complexity.
>> >>
>> >> Sincerely,
>> >>
>> >> Alex Rollin
>> >> [email protected]
>> >> http://alexrollin.com
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 9:23 AM, Michel Bauwens
>> >> <[email protected]>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > [Converted from multipart/alternative]
>> >> >
>> >> > [1 text/plain]
>> >> > Hi Marc,
>> >> >
>> >> > the key is to see humans as complex beings, not as inherently good or
>> >> > bad,
>> >> > but we can design social systems that nudge the good behaviours not
>> >> > the
>> >> > bad
>> >> > ones
>> >> >
>> >> > peer production, and the commons work, when individual and collective
>> >> > interests can be aligned
>> >> >
>> >> > this is the domain of http://p2pfoundation.net/Value_Sensitive_Design
>> >> >
>> >> > An interesting contribution on that topic, from
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > http://p2pfoundation.net/Primary_vs_Secondary_Individual-Group_Mentality:
>> >> >
>> >> > A distinction made by Heb Shepard, summarized by Rosa Zubizarreta:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > *from the perspective of "primary mentality", 'individual' and
>> >> > 'group'
>> >> > are
>> >> > experienced as opposite...* in order to have a strong group, it
>> >> > appears
>> >> > that
>> >> > we need to 'give up' some of our individuality; conversely, to be
>> >> > 'individuals', it appears we need to 'distance' ourselves from the
>> >> > group...
>> >> >
>> >> > *in contrast, from the perspective of "secondary mentality"
>> >> > 'individual'
>> >> > and
>> >> > 'group' are experienced in a synergistic way*: the MORE room there is
>> >> > for
>> >> > people to be individual and unique and eccentric, the stronger a
>> >> > group
>> >> > we
>> >> > will have; conversely, the more real support i can feel from the
>> >> > group,
>> >> > the
>> >> > more individual and unique and eccentric i can be...
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >  Rosa Zubizarreta:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > "[what's crucial is] whether we are experiencing the 'two sides' [of
>> >> > individual and collective] as a 'zero-sum game', where the MORE room
>> >> > there
>> >> > is of one, the LESS room there can be for the other...
>> >> >
>> >> > OR instead, as a potential synergy, a 'creative tension' where the
>> >> > well-being of each, enhances the well-being of the other....
>> >> >
>> >> > Herb Shepard, one of the pioneers of organization development, wrote
>> >> > years
>> >> > ago about the distinction between what he called "primary mentality"
>> >> > and
>> >> > "secondary mentality"....
>> >> >
>> >> > from the perspective of "primary mentality", 'individual' and 'group'
>> >> > are
>> >> > experienced as opposite... in order to have a strong group, it
>> >> > appears
>> >> > that
>> >> > we need to 'give up' some of our individuality; conversely, to be
>> >> > 'individuals', it appears we need to 'distance' ourselves from the
>> >> > group...
>> >> >
>> >> > in contrast, from the perspective of "secondary mentality"
>> >> > 'individual'
>> >> > and
>> >> > 'group' are experienced in a synergistic way: the MORE room there is
>> >> > for
>> >> > people to be individual and unique and eccentric, the stronger a
>> >> > group
>> >> > we
>> >> > will have; conversely, the more real support i can feel from the
>> >> > group,
>> >> > the
>> >> > more individual and unique and eccentric i can be...
>> >> >
>> >> > i think that what Shepard was referring to as a 'mentality' (whether
>> >> > primary
>> >> > or secondary) resides not just within each of us, as individuals, but
>> >> > also,
>> >> > within a group, or culture, or social arrangement...
>> >> >
>> >> > not just in 'individual consciousness' OR in 'group structures', but
>> >> > in
>> >> > BOTH...
>> >> >
>> >> > so we as individuals, we can always discover or create ways to
>> >> > 'resist'
>> >> > structures that are organized along the lines of 'primary mentality',
>> >> > and,
>> >> > find ways to create forms of social interaction, that support
>> >> > 'secondary
>> >> > mentality"....
>> >> >
>> >> > AND, at the same time, the social forms of organization, _do_ affect
>> >> > us...
>> >> > making one or another form of mentality, more likely... Our ways of
>> >> > talking
>> >> > and thinking and organizing ourselves, tend to be rooted in one or
>> >> > the
>> >> > other
>> >> > mentality.....
>> >> >
>> >> > i think it's also important to recognize, that these forms or
>> >> > structures,
>> >> > that embody and support these different kinds of consciousness can be
>> >> > 'habitual' and 'informal', rather than 'explicit/formal'... so even
>> >> > when
>> >> > a
>> >> > community has rejected the conventional forms of organization which
>> >> > could be
>> >> > seen as embodying primary mentality (voting, majority rules,
>> >> > bureaucratic
>> >> > structures, etc...)
>> >> >
>> >> > it's still the case, that the community will tend to have a
>> >> > particular
>> >> > 'culture', or 'way of doing things'... and that culture will not
>> >> > necessarily
>> >> > be 'secondary' since as individuals, we still tend to carry the
>> >> > "primary
>> >> > mentality" within us, even in the absence of conventional forms of
>> >> > organization...
>> >> >
>> >> > so the desire to 'belong', to 'get along', to 'not be excluded from
>> >> > the
>> >> > group', along with the internalized belief, that to do so, we need to
>> >> > 'not
>> >> > make waves', can tend to silence a lot of potential divergence and
>> >> > encourage
>> >> > conformity to the prevailing cultural norms... (the 'groupthink'
>> >> > phenomenon....
>> >> >
>> >> > i think this may connect in some way, with what Danah Boyd was
>> >> > pointing
>> >> > to,
>> >> > about her concern with the wikipedia community's adulation of the
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > media...<http://p2pfoundation.net/Primary_vs_Secondary_Individual-Group_Mentality?title=I_think_this_may_connect_in_some_way,_with_what_Danah_Boyd_was_pointing_to,_about_her_concern_with_the_wikipedia_community%27s_adulation_of_the_media...&action=edit&redlink=1>
>> >> >
>> >> > so, to whatever degree a community does _not_ have effective ways of
>> >> > creating containers for divergent perspectives and ways of being,
>> >> > effective
>> >> > ways in which difference and conflict can transform into greater
>> >> > creativity,
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > people will _still_, tend to experience an 'either-or', between
>> >> > 'being
>> >> > themselves', and 'being a part of the community'... even in the
>> >> > absence
>> >> > of
>> >> > the formal structures that embody primary mentality...
>> >> >
>> >> > this is _not_ something we can "think ourselves out of", in my view,
>> >> > although, theory can be helpful...
>> >> >
>> >> > we need to create, the EXPERIENCE, of "safe places for the fullness
>> >> > of
>> >> > our
>> >> > individuality to manifest itself, IN THE CONTEXT OF, shared space..."
>> >> >
>> >> > [[this is the purpose of a kind of facilitation which focuses on
>> >> > DIVERGENCE,
>> >> > not convergence, in a way that allows authentic (emergent)
>> >> > convergence
>> >> > to
>> >> > take place freely, of its own accord...
>> >> >
>> >> > my experience of much of conventional facilitation, is that it is on
>> >> > the
>> >> > "reductionist collectivism" end of the spectrum...:-) ]]
>> >> >
>> >> > without alternative structures that welcome individual creativity and
>> >> > divergence within a shared space, all we know is what we DON'T want,
>> >> > and
>> >> > so
>> >> > we tend to throw out the formal structures that embody primary
>> >> > mentality
>> >> > (voting, majority rules, bureaucratic structures, etc.) without
>> >> > having
>> >> > anything to put in their place...
>> >> >
>> >> > as the critics of consensus and deliberation have pointed out, these
>> >> > "primary mentality" structures often do give SOME protection to the
>> >> > minority
>> >> > perspective. However i am NOT arguing here, in 'favor' of them... i
>> >> > am
>> >> > simply pointing out that, _without_ those formal structure ,AND,
>> >> > _without
>> >> > anything else_, to take their place, we can become even MORE
>> >> > vulnerable
>> >> > to
>> >> > the pull of cultural conformity that operates, generally implicitly,
>> >> > often
>> >> > throughinformal networks, status and influence, 'the way things are
>> >> > done
>> >> > around here', etc. etc. etc."
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 12:45 PM, marc fawzi <[email protected]>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> But still, despite Michel's much appreciated view on the human
>> >> >> psyche
>> >> >> (the layers and all that), the theories that we construct need to
>> >> >> work
>> >> >> with the fact that people are inclined to do very irrational things.
>> >> >> I
>> >> >> feel that idealistic, good meaning theories, including socialism,
>> >> >> and
>> >> >> the commons, don't achieve that.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> So we need to work with that irrationality, which sometimes leads to
>> >> >> things like profit, scarcity enforcing currency, etc, but a good
>> >> >> model/theory should not amplify our flawed tendencies, just
>> >> >> recognize
>> >> >> them and work with them. That's the point I wanted to make, not the
>> >> >> human psyche itself, however it may be constructed, and no one
>> >> >> really
>> >> >> knows, even though some views are more enlightened than others.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 7:56 PM, marc fawzi <[email protected]>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> > Well, Michel actually corrected my thinking with what I feel is an
>> >> >> > enlightening response, so re-posting here:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > from    Michel Bauwens <[email protected]>
>> >> >> > to      marc fawzi <[email protected]>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Hi Marc,
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > This is a very complex subject, but I think your dichotomy is too
>> >> >> > simplistic, i.e. irrational natural behaviour vs. rational human
>> >> >> > civilizational behaviour ...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Indeed much that is 'evil' in us, does not come from the animal
>> >> >> > part,
>> >> >> > but from the human, and how it activily represses some
>> >> >> > 'naturality'
>> >> >> > (of course talking like this is in itself misleading, since the
>> >> >> > human
>> >> >> > is of course also natural).
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > So the best ways of seeing it is are for me still the integrative
>> >> >> > approaches, seeing how different levels of psychic complexitity
>> >> >> > develop on top of the other, each with a potential to repress in
>> >> >> > pathological ways, remnants of the earlier layers.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > This is why any human that wishes to grow, must at some point
>> >> >> > undertake a regression in the service of the ego in order to
>> >> >> > become
>> >> >> > more fully aware of these archaic sediments, and how they
>> >> >> > influence
>> >> >> > us.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I think  your 'rational' model also fails to see the transrational
>> >> >> > requirements, which are better developed in the East, i.e. not
>> >> >> > just
>> >> >> > to
>> >> >> > master the irrational with the so-called rational mind (the
>> >> >> > western
>> >> >> > enligthenment), but also also to master the so-called rational
>> >> >> > mind,
>> >> >> > from a trans-rational, trans-mental (i.e. it looks at the mind
>> >> >> > itself,
>> >> >> > from the wordless  'witness' position) (i.e. the eastern
>> >> >> > enligthenment)
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I'm not in favour of radical eastern enlightenment per se (in
>> >> >> > fact,
>> >> >> > I'm opposed to it), but rather for a balanced 'householder'
>> >> >> > spirituality that is embodied in real life and social engagement,
>> >> >> > and
>> >> >> > recognizes both archaic, rational, and transrational aspects of
>> >> >> > our
>> >> >> > selves.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Michel
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 3:10 PM, marc fawzi <[email protected]>
>> >> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> >> Personally, I think it's a subjective issue.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Let me explain my view.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> I happen to believe that there are two parts to our psyche: the
>> >> >> >> rational part and the ancient animal or irrational part (greed,
>> >> >> >> irrational pleasures, temptation, and most importantly 'fear',
>> >> >> >> all
>> >> >> >> reside there, i.e. our weaknesses)
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Obviously, the purpose of civilization is to tame or minimize or
>> >> >> >> even
>> >> >> >> eliminate irrational behavior but the irrational part in us is
>> >> >> >> not
>> >> >> >> as
>> >> >> >> conditionable as the rational part, which is why war, crime and
>> >> >> >> injustice continue to this day.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> According to latest game theory research, rational behavior in
>> >> >> >> nature
>> >> >> >> demands both egalitarian type cooperation as well as competition,
>> >> >> >> not
>> >> >> >> just competition or cooperation in the context of competition.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> However, when it comes to the irrational part, where fear reigns
>> >> >> >> supreme (and is the root cause of our weakness), we don't really
>> >> >> >> follow evolutionary game theory as much as we should. We do
>> >> >> >> follow
>> >> >> >> it
>> >> >> >> when we are feeling courage and when we are resourced
>> >> >> >> (psychologically
>> >> >> >> and physically) but when weakness creeps up (due to irrational
>> >> >> >> fear
>> >> >> >> of
>> >> >> >> something including some of the deepest existential issues) we
>> >> >> >> enter
>> >> >> >> into a state of temporary irrationality, out of weakness, and
>> >> >> >> with
>> >> >> >> some people it becomes a homeostasis, i.e. stuck in fear.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> That is why the capitalist systems works (whereas socialist
>> >> >> >> systems
>> >> >> >> have failed thus far) even when it promotes war, crime and
>> >> >> >> injustice.
>> >> >> >> It feeds on our weakness. We must resist it, but we cannot defeat
>> >> >> >> it
>> >> >> >> unless we rise above our weakness. At this time seeing how people
>> >> >> >> are
>> >> >> >> today the hope I have in my own work is to understand fear and
>> >> >> >> the
>> >> >> >> process of gaining strength and enable a system that allows
>> >> >> >> people
>> >> >> >> to
>> >> >> >> gain courage and abandon fear, but that is akin to asking someone
>> >> >> >> to
>> >> >> >> change their homeostasis to a new one. It's an incredibly
>> >> >> >> difficult
>> >> >> >> process and there are entire libraries of books written about the
>> >> >> >> subject (e.g. spiritual books, religions, psychology books, self
>> >> >> >> help
>> >> >> >> books, etc)
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> There has to be a better way, but it can be overlooking the fact
>> >> >> >> that
>> >> >> >> we are, as a civilization, still predominantly driven by fear.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Marc
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 2:29 PM, Patrick Anderson
>> >> >> >> <[email protected]>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >>> On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 3:03 PM, marc fawzi
>> >> >> >>> <[email protected]>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >>>> in a true equilibrium anyone who wishes to get X number or
>> >> >> >>>> amount
>> >> >> >>>> of
>> >> >> some good or service
>> >> >> >>>> should be able to do so at the median cost of that good or
>> >> >> >>>> service
>> >> >> >>>> + a
>> >> >> fixed profit 'margin'
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> Why do you and Franz say there *must* there be a profit
>> >> >> >>> 'margin'?
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> If you say "as a return for the investors", then I ask:
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> But what if the investors (and therefore owners) are the only
>> >> >> >>> consumers?  For in that case, there would be no profit ... but
>> >> >> >>> does
>> >> >> >>> imply there can be no production when the owner of an apple tree
>> >> >> >>> is
>> >> >> >>> the sole consumer (eats all the apples himself)?
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> Notice the owner(s) are not required to be the worker(s) for
>> >> >> >>> those
>> >> >> >>> Means of Production.
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> If a quadriplegic apple tree owner hired some workers to pick
>> >> >> >>> apples
>> >> >> >>> with money/tokens he earned by giving talks, he would pay those
>> >> >> >>> costs
>> >> >> >>> as Wages, but still would not pay profit, for who would he pay
>> >> >> >>> it
>> >> >> >>> to?
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> Sincerely,
>> >> >> >>> Patrick
>> >> >> >>> _________________________________
>> >> >> >>> Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
>> >> >> >>> Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
>> >> >> >>> Contact: [email protected]
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> --
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Marc Fawzi
>> >> >> >> Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/people/Marc-Fawzi/605919256
>> >> >> >> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/marcfawzi
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > --
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Marc Fawzi
>> >> >> > Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/people/Marc-Fawzi/605919256
>> >> >> > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/marcfawzi
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> --
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Marc Fawzi
>> >> >> Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/people/Marc-Fawzi/605919256
>> >> >> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/marcfawzi
>> >> >> _________________________________
>> >> >> Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
>> >> >> Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
>> >> >> Contact: [email protected]
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> > Working at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University -
>> >> > http://www.dpu.ac.th/dpuic/info/Research.html -
>> >> > http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
>> >> >
>> >> > Volunteering at the P2P Foundation:
>> >> > http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net -
>> >> > http://p2pfoundation.ning.com
>> >> >
>> >> > Monitor updates at http://del.icio.us/mbauwens
>> >> >
>> >> > The work of the P2P Foundation is supported by SHIFTN,
>> >> > http://www.shiftn.com/
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > [2 text/html]
>> >> > _________________________________
>> >> > Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
>> >> > Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
>> >> > Contact: [email protected]
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Alex
>> >> I cannot teach anybody anything, I can only make them think.- Socrates
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Working at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University -
>> > http://www.dpu.ac.th/dpuic/info/Research.html -
>> > http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
>> >
>> > Volunteering at the P2P Foundation:
>> > http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net -
>> > http://p2pfoundation.ning.com
>> >
>> > Monitor updates at http://del.icio.us/mbauwens
>> >
>> > The work of the P2P Foundation is supported by SHIFTN,
>> > http://www.shiftn.com/
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Alex
>> I cannot teach anybody anything, I can only make them think.- Socrates
>
>
>
> --
> Working at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University -
> http://www.dpu.ac.th/dpuic/info/Research.html -
> http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
>
> Volunteering at the P2P Foundation:
> http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net -
> http://p2pfoundation.ning.com
>
> Monitor updates at http://del.icio.us/mbauwens
>
> The work of the P2P Foundation is supported by SHIFTN,
> http://www.shiftn.com/
>



-- 
Alex
I cannot teach anybody anything, I can only make them think.- Socrates
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: [email protected]